Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Pitts: Just because it works doesn’t mean it’s right

First Published Jan 22 2014 04:32 pm • Last Updated Jan 22 2014 04:32 pm

"But it works."

That, in three syllables, has been the go-to argument of the last two presidential administrations to justify assaulting civil liberties in the name of rooting out terrorists.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

It’s a dubious line of reasoning, proceeding as it does from the implicit assumption that if a thing works, if it achieves the important goal for which it was designed, that trumps all other considerations.

But it’s a false assumption and you don’t have to do much cogitating to find the gaping hole in it. Namely: the question of whether or not a thing works has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not that thing is right.

If, for instance, you wanted to stop mass shootings, legislation outlawing the sale, possession or manufacture of any gun capable of firing more than one bullet without reloading might work. It would also be a terrible idea.

So the government’s logic is flawed. "But it works" cannot be the sole metric by which a thing is judged. Especially when it doesn’t.

Work, that is.

Apologists for the Bush administration argued that allowing torture worked, helping to safeguard this country against terrorist attack. Five years after Bush left office, the truth of that claim is unclear at best and still furiously disputed. The Obama administration, meantime, is dealing with its own civil-liberties controversy: the NSA’s bulk collection of so-called metadata - the date, time, length and phone numbers of every phone call made by darn near everybody darn near everywhere. It is a massive invasion of privacy and frightening, too, considering the ease with which it could be made to serve totalitarian purposes.

But it works, the president has said.

Actually, it doesn’t.


story continues below
story continues below

That’s the finding of a report issued last week by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit. In reviewing the cases of 225 individuals recruited by terrorist groups and indicted for terrorism since 9/11, it found bulk data collection played a role less than 2 percent of the time. "Surveillance of American phone metadata," it says, "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism and only the most marginal of impacts on preventing terrorist-related activity, such as fundraising for a terrorist group."

Government claims that the program has been critical to counterterrorism are, said the study, "overblown and even misleading." This tracks with the findings of another report, issued last month by a group appointed by the White House itself. It dubbed metadata collection "not essential" to preventing terrorist attacks.

As it happens, President Obama gave a speech last week at the Justice Department in which he addressed metadata collection and other controversial intelligence gathering schemes revealed by fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

The president offered a series of reforms designed to assuage public concern about omnivorous government spying. Among them: a promise to transition custodianship of the metadata database to a non-governmental third party.

So . you feeling assuaged yet? No? Small wonder.

However you slice, dice or spin it, we are left with that same inconvenient truth: "But it works" is a lousy argument, and . "it" doesn’t work. That being the case, what justification remains for the government - or a non-governmental third party - to collect information on who we call, how long we talk and when?

This is what the president should have addressed. Instead, he promises to find a different way to do what hasn’t been useful. Shame on him for that. Shame on us if we are mollified by modifications of a program that shouldn’t exist.

What the government is doing would be highly questionable if it worked. It is indefensible since it does not.



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.